Sunday, December 31, 2006

The Death of Saddam ~ Another "Hitler" Gone

CAUTION!... Graphic Video

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Dedicated To Anonymous at Kimba’s Blog

Exported from:

The Nose On Your Face (Conservative Satire)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Are you freakishly obsessed with the daily casualty count in Iraq? Do you find yourself disappointed when a day or two goes by and no American soldiers die? Have you ever been at a cocktail party and said, "How can we be so damn jovial when George Bush is responsible for a death toll in Iraq that is approaching one-tenth the total of British dead in the Second Boer War?"

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you need the new Associated Press Pocket Iraq Casualty Counter! Now the information you need to make bizarre, extraneous points about the Iraqi War is at your fingertips, 24 hours a day! The Pocket Casualty Counter uses satellite technology to wirelessly provide instant updates on casualties, as they happen. And the Pocket Casualty Counter links the death toll with a historical database to provide you with the factual ammunition you need to battle those crazy neo-cons, on the go! So you'll be able to say, "I hate to be the one to tell you this, but George Bush has now murdered 10 times the number of people who are eaten alive in an average decade by the Spotted Siberian Tiger." Imagine the look of shock on their Christian fundamentalist faces!

Still not convinced? What if we told you the Pocket Casualty Counter can be personally customized, so the latest information can be delivered by your favorite anti-war celebrity? That's right! Who better to tell you that a U.S. soldier has died than Cindy Sheehan? Or Michael Moore? Imagine the dulcet tones of John Kerry echoing from your pocket against a funeral dirge. You'll be the talk of starbucks.

But wait, there's more! Act now, and we'll include a free software upgrade to get real-time WOUNDED statistics as well. And since the Pocket Casualty Counter counts SAD and SLEEPING soldiers as WOUNDED, you'll get the robust numbers you need to make killer anti-war points that will leave your opponents speechless!

How can this get any better? Order in the next 30 minutes, and we'll send you, free of charge, the AP Abacus of Dead Iraqi Civilians. Now you can count the murdered innocents of Iraq like an old Babylonian, wailing and crying as you slide the beads of death!

So that's the Pocket Casualty Counter, the free WOUNDED software upgrade, and the AP Abacus of Dead Iraqi Civilians! And you can have it all for just $199.99! But you must act now! Sympathetic operators with multiple piercings are standing by! CALL NOW!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Ethiopia Kickin’ Butt!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Let us pray they win this battle. Somalia has become a hotbed of Islamo-Fascism, which has led to minor border skirmishes with Ethiopia (a largely Christian nation). They have finally had enough and consider an Islamic state right next to them as an important enough security threat to invade – full swing. Ethiopia ignored the press, something our Democrats make sure we do not do, and pressed forward to victory. Now the legitimate Somali Government and troops are filtering back into control… thanks to Ethiopia’s un-PC like behavior.

  • Reuters Article
  • Sharia cannot, I repeat, cannot be allowed a foothold in any new country. Just as Nazism or Communism was an ideology we fought against, so to is this new-wave of Islamo-Fascism. With the weakening of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad grip on his people , and the yearning for freedom… we may be seeing other countries stepping up to the plate and drawing their lines in the sand.


  • Real-Clear Politics Article

  • PapaG

    Friday, December 22, 2006

    Another Dem Victory

    Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists.

    In a portion of the tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, made available only today, Zawahri says he has two messages for American Democrats.

    “The first is that you aren’t the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen — the Muslim Ummah’s vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq — are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost,” Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News.

    Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help.

    “And if you don’t refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate,” he said.

    (Hat Tip: LGF)

    From an old post, just for some history:

    Best of the Web Today brings to our attention a new Pew poll done for the Council on Foreign Relations. Among the interesting findings of this poll are these:

    51% of Democrats say that US "wrongdoing" might have motivated the 9/11 attacks…. In contrast, only 17% of Republicans in the poll are this amazingly stupid.

    These are the people who buy-into the whole, Left-wing, Koolaid-swilling nonsense… the… Bushitler/Blood4Oil/Bushlied (hattip to JawaReport). Another survey (says) done was the Scripps Howard/Ohio University, this poll found that a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East…. The poll [also] found that [m]embers of racial and ethnic minorities, people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11.

    I like to think that the neo-cons and many of the conservatives (remember, neo-cons being to the left of Reaganites) live up to Theodore Roosevelt’s timely quote:

    "It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out where the strong man stumbled, or where a doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and who comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause. The man who at best knows the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold timid souls who never knew victory or defeat."

    Tuesday, December 19, 2006

    History Repeating Itself

    Monday, December 18, 2006


    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    This is the new face of barvery!
    If this person is a Muslim, this Christian is praying for him!

    Thursday, December 14, 2006

    My Top 25 Books I've Read

    I have read well over 1,500 non-fiction books… probably more like 1,700. In all this reading I wanted to list 25 of the books that I would recommend over the many others for their impact on my thinking as well as being great books for others to consider reading. Some are political, philosophical, or religious. All, however, deal with one’s worldview. It will challenge your thinking and make you re-consider your position on many things (if you do not already track with the author).

    Enjoy, this list will change from time to time, but very minutely. There are some books that I know will never come off this list.


    Top “Twenty-Five” Book List

    1. Unshakeable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith, by Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino

    2. Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air, by Francis Beckwith & Greg Koukl

    3. Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas, by Daniel J. Flynn

    4. The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy, by Thomas Sowell

    5. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, by Nancy Pearcy

    6. Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, ed. Norman Geisler & Paul Hoffman

    7. The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led To Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, by Rodney Stark

    8. Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Norman Geisler & Frank Turek

    9. The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis, by Robert George

    10. The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View, by Richard Tarnas

    11. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict: To Answer Questions Challenging Christians in the 21st Century, by Josh McDowell

    12. The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, by Russell Kirk

    13. Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights, by Francis Beckwith

    14. The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement, ed. Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser & Paul Owen

    15. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer

    16. To Everyone an Answer: The Case for the Christian Worldview, ed. Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland

    17. Does God Believe in Atheists? by John Blanchard

    18. Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, ed. William Dembski

    19. The Big Argument: Does God Exist – Twenty Four Scholars Explore How Science, Archaeology, and Philosophy Haven’t Disproved God, ed. John Ashton & Michael Westacott

    20. The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values, by Tammy Bruce

    21. Black Rednecks and White Liberals, by Thomas Sowell

    22. The Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure of American Public Schools, by Martin Gross (tied for this spot is Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can’t Read, Write, or Add, by Charles Sykes

    23. Ten Philosophical Mistakes, by Mortimer J. Adler

    24. The Road to Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek

    25. Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America, by Thomas G. West

    Bonus ~ True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment, by J. Budziszewski

    Wednesday, December 13, 2006

    Kwanzaa --- Racism in Disguise

    This was a “clarification letter” written to my son’s fifth-grade teacher. The in-class activity was to break the kids up into groups and learn about the various holidays, so I politely asked that my son sit in on the Hanukah or Christmas table, as he had been assigned to the Kwanzaa table. I gave some reasoning behind this decision – as I often do about most decisions I make (my wife would beg to differ).

    The reason I felt it necessary to clarify the original letter was because the teacher gave the letter over to the principle, and I heard through the grape-vine that the principle called the letter, ergo me, racist. While I sympathized with the principle a bit… because, well, I “look” like a racist (shaved head and all)… I just couldn’t let this just pass by. I am sure that this sixties – Berkley attending – gentleman had gotten away with such a card before, he unfortunately hadn’t researched his statement in my particular case enough.

    First of all, while I look like a racist, I in fact have a wonderful black grandmother. Not only do I have a black grandmother, I also grew up in Detroit, where I was the only white kid at the public school and in my neighbor hood. I didn’t just “have a black friend,” I, in fact, didn’t have any white friends whatsoever… they were all black ~ they (my friends) had “a white friend.”

    Not only did this principle not know my history, he apparently didn’t realize that I quoted mainly from either black authors as well as from the L. A. Times. In fact, after having a sit down meeting with my son’s fifth-grade principle, I realized that he had not even read the original paper, he just assumed that any person who spoke out against Kwanzaa (whether rationally or illogically) was a bigot.

    Unfortunately this old-school “sweeping-under-the-carpet” argument that I’m sure guided this gentlemen through many a brushing off of a parent just didn’t work in this case.

    I made sure he read this second letter.



    Kwanzaa ~ Not Just Another Holiday!

    A Letter from a Concerned Parent (Fifth-Grade/2002 ~ updated 11-11-05)

    Who Created Kwanzaa?

    Kwanzaa was invented by Ron Kerenga in 1966 as a means to foster and help the Black Nationalist movement in their goal to segregate and separate the races. Ron Kerenga, thus, views people of Jewish decent, much like the Nation of Islam, as “devils,” to be stamped out like weeds. His views towards whites are very similar ~ racist, in-other-words. Let’s look at some of this history.

    Kerenga founded and led the United Slaves, a Black Nationalist organization, which got into gun battles with the Black Panthers on occasion with people murdered as a result.

    The biggest dispute between the United Slaves and the Panthers was for the leadership of the new African Studies Department at UCLA, with each group backing a different candidate. Panthers John Jerome Huggins and Alprentice “Bunchy” Carter verbally attacked Karenga at the meeting, which infuriated Karenga’s followers. After the meeting ended, two United Slaves members, George and Larry Stiner, reportedly confronted Huggins and Carter in a hallway, shooting and killing them.[1], [2]

    In 1970, Kerenga and two of his followers were arrested by authorities for the torture of two of his female followers, Debra Jones and Gail Davis. Kerenga did time in prison for disrobing these two women at gunpoint and having them beaten severely. Kerenga told them that “Vietnamese torture is nothing compared to what we know,” whereupon he forced a hot soldering iron into the mouth of one while the other had a toe squeezed in a vice.

    The Los Angeles Times described the events: “Deborah Jones, who once was given the title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electric cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes at gunpoint. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Miss Davis’ mouth and placed against Miss Davis’ face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vice. Karenga, head of US, also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said.”

    Karenga was sentenced to one-to-ten years in prison on counts of felonious assault and false imprisonment. At his trial, the question arose as to Karenga’s sanity. The psychiatrist’s report stated:

    “This man now represents a picture which can be considered both paranoid and schizophrenic with hallucinations and illusions, inappropriate affect, disorganization, and impaired contact with the environment.” The psychiatrist reportedly observed that Karenga talked to his blanket and imaginary persons, and he believed he’d been attacked by dive-bombers.

    Eight years later, California State University Long Beach named Karenga the head of its Black Studies Department. By this time, Karenga had “repented” of his black nationalism and had become just a harmless garden variety Marxist. This must be our esteemed university system’s idea of repentance![3]

    How terrifying for these two women! According to the July 27, 1971 Los Angeles Times, a psychological profile of Kerenga described him “as a danger to society who is in need of prolonged custodial treatment in prison.” The profile noted that Kerenga, while legally sane, was “confused and not in contact with reality.”

    The “seven principles” of Kwanzaa that Kerenga created as part of the Nguzo Saba are little more than Marxism transposed into afrocentric key.[4] Therefore, the Kwanzaa celebration, unlike – for instance – the Martin Luther King holiday, celebrates separatism and Black Nationalism. It would be the same as the school teaching and celebrating a holiday created by the Ku Klux Klan, or an offshoot thereof. (I would just as vehemently speak out against this as well, for when the school sets its seal of approval on a celebration, you teach all its goals and aims ~ whether religious or political.)

    Created Equal

    My point is that I teach my children that all men are created equal and that all men are equal in the eyes of God. This is what Christmas is all about! Jesus came to save the world (John 3:16-17), God’s Word has always stated that He hasmade of one blood [i.e. from one man, Adam] all nations of men (Acts 17:26, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45). Kerenga created Kwanzaa to shun the world and display racism as their main goal for the holiday season, in place of Christmas. In fact, when asked why he designed Kwanzaa to take place around Christmas, Karenga explained, “People think it’s African, but it’s not. I came up with Kwanzaa because black people wouldn’t celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that’s when a lot of bloods would be partying.” Great values!

    Again, trying to tie in African culture and beliefs with this holiday celebration is a stretch, to say the least. Kwanzaa was created in 1966 by a revolutionary Marxist and racist man – Kerenga – who took here and there from the African culture as well as the Menorah from Judaism[5], and created a new celebration with socialist/Marxist overtones.

    I have long-standing family friends who are native-born Africans (Kenyans), who have given their entire life to the mission field. They vehemently oppose this holiday because it creates subversion between the races when love is needed most. Neither do they find a connection with it and African culture.

    Origins vs. Current Beliefs

    Do the millions of black Americans who celebrate Kwanzaa think of it as the ritualization of socialism? Doubtful. Do they object to the mainstreaming of Kwanzaa symbols and products? Probably not. Do they know anything about Karenga and his past? It doesn't seem so. When Karenga spoke at the Million-Man March, he went virtually unnoticed. However, the holiday's origins in a terrible time and with a terrible person are certainly relevant to its legitimacy.


    I do not mind if the school teaches my son true history, which includes the history of Africa, as well as other Continents. However, having said this, I do not pay my hard earned tax dollars for the school to meet some need of trying to teach and include all the cultural holidays of the world, which apparently must include racist holidays founded right here in California’s radical [recent] past. That is not the schools job; it is mine, if I so choose!

    This is why this subject is so “political,” you have in a sense undermined my family’s values and put it upon yourselves to teach my son “multi-culturalism” in a “politically-correct” fashion. This, then, requires the school to make value judgments on how to teach this to my child. Which is why I pointed out that by doing so, you have strayed from being neutral to taking a position on how to present other peoples cultural mores (which now includes racism as mainstream) to my child (in rejection of America’s cultural mores… which is Christmas and Hanukah, i.e., Judeo-Christian).

    Back to the Original Premise!

    So again, I restate my three points in the original letter[6] on why I asked to have my son join either the Christmas table or Hanukah table in class; in contradistinction to Kwanzaa or the Chinese New Year:

    1. It [Kwanzaa] promotes and supports ethnic separation and segregation. For instance, Hallmark Cards and Giant Foods have a policy of any items related to Kwanzaa be produced and sold only by blacks (William A. Henry III, “The Politics of Separation,” Time Magazine [fall 1993]: 75). This was also the intent of the founder of Kwanzaa, Dr. Maulana Kerenga, separation, not healing. Christmas promotes the latter.

    2. It is not practiced equally with the traditional (Judeo-Christian) practices. For example: one public schools students and parents were asked to come in and share with the class about Kwanzaa, and other religious holiday practices of their Buddhist faith and Muslim faith as well as the traditions and practices of Hanukkah. When one parent attempted to share the true meaning Christmas, using a Nativity scene as a visual aid, the presentation was prohibited. (Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us from Evil: Restoring the Soul in a Disintegrating Culture, p. 57)

    3. It takes a political and moral stance. This type of multi-cultural “politically-correct” inclusive teaching takes a moral and political stance that requires value judgments to be made that are at variance with my (and many others) particular political and moral stance on afro-centric history and teaching… as well as putting one set of moral pre-suppositions (Marxism, racism, segregation) above others. Thus, taking a non-neutral position.

    [1] Kwanzaa -- Racist Holiday from Hell” By Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson; | December 29, 2004 –

    [2] Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson (a black-American) is the Founder and President of BOND (the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, He is also the author of the book SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America. For more information, please call 1-800-411-BOND (2663), or e-mail

    [3] Ibid.

    [4] Afrocentrism is a political movement that believes Greek culture was borrowed from Black Africans. Among others on the Afrocentrist side is Emeritus Professor of Near Eastern History Martin Bernal who wrote Black Athena. Among others opposing him is Mary Lefkowitz, classical scholar and author of Not Out of Africa who denies the Greeks stole culture from Black Egyptians. There are some moderate positions, but the whole Afrocentrism controversy is based on concepts of race and racism, and is therefore very difficult to discuss without enraging someone.


    [5] Kerenga believes that the black race are the real Jewish peoples, much like Christian Identity – the religious movement of the KKK – believes the white race to be the true Jewish peoples. The bottom line is this: both views are founded in racist ideology!

    [6] Carlotta Morrow, the main author I quoted from heavily in my first letter to the school, (a black-American woman) began her research on Kwanzaa in the early 1980's after her sister, who was a member of Dr. Karenga's black activist group called the United Slaves (US) Organization, denounced her faith in Christ, claiming that Christianity was a white man's religion.

    Determined to find out the teachings that persuaded her sister's complete change in faith, she went with her sister to "the Center" to hear what was being taught. She was deeply disturbed at the "us" against the "white man" attitude that seeped through the meetings, and especially at the negativity directed toward the Christian and Jewish religions.

    Seeing the spiritual and racial harm being subtly encouraged, Carlotta began her trek in learning, researching and exposing the real truth and spiritual seductiveness of the principles behind Kwanzaa.

    She has had articles on Kwanzaa appear in the Southern California Christian Times, the Twin City Christian Magazine of Minnesota, Tout Timoun Nou Yo also of Minnesota, (a quarterly for families with children adopted from Haiti) and has been a guest on radio talk shows in the Southern California area which included an on-air discussion with Dr. Karenga on the Mason Weaver Show of KPRZ in San Diego, where the author resides.

    Tuesday, December 12, 2006

    Sorry for the lack of blogs... I just got Cable Internet service and it took them two-weeks to get out here!

    Anyways, I am extremely busy with school, so my blogs and comments on others blogs will be sparse for the next month or two.

    Much Thought.

    Sunday, November 26, 2006

    Defending the Faith Over a Syrah

    "Defending the Faith Over a Syrah"

    My first wine tasting experiance... for my history buffs

    What follows is part of a conversation with a theophobe as well as some additions for a deeper understanding for the readers of my blog (some of which you may have already read). Enjoy. I know I enjoyed the discussion and possibly making a bigoted person rethink her position, or at least instill in them a yearning for real history and knowing the difference between rhetoric and truth.

    Late September turned into an opportunity for my wife and me to visit some wineries in the Santa Ynez Valley. We met up with some friends and family members, as well as some of their friends/co-workers. These family member's/friend's co-workers I speak of all work at a public school. So the direction of the conversation didn't necessarily surprise me, but it sure did dishearten me. What disheartened me was that this teacher wasn't just arguing a model or philosophy of history that didn't exist until Marx and Engels interpreted history with their worldview[1] (that all of history is a class struggle), it was that they were putting forth arguments that my oldest son could probably tear down. I say tear down because most of the arguments put forth were what is called straw-man arguments, or just plain wrong. Below I will put into a Context what will follow:

    a) First Contact

    b) Conversation Starter

    c) "Theophobia" -- A Psychosis?

    d) Rhetoric vs. Argument

    e) Non-Religious Movements vs. Religious

    f) What is Fascism?

    g) Ethics Without God!

    h) Hitler: Christian or Philosophical Naturalist?

    i) Hitler's Occultism

    j) Buddhism -- Self-Refuting

    k) Buddhism & Evil

    l) Eastern Charity

    m) Scientists Praying

    n) Genesis Proved Right


    Conversation started at the first winery about a topic that caused me to mention a letter I wrote to my son's sixth-grade classmate's parents. It was on Native American and Settler relations. As the conversation skimmed along I portrayed the teacher as explaining history in a similar fashion to Howard Zinn. This teacher mentioned that Howard Zinn's view of history was good; I, then, pointed out that this view did not exist until Marx and Engels -- sort of hoping this would spark said person to understand that this outlook on history, viewed through a lens of political opinion (e.g., Communism, Socialism), was not true history, rather, skewed history. This first contact at least allowed me to know with whom I was dealing.


    The day went on; it was the usual fun, talking, learning, and laughing. At the last winery we were about halfway into our flight of wines when I hear this teacher and my wife discussing organized religion. As I am a student of comparative religion[2], philosophy[3], politics[4], and some history, I naturally gravitated over to where the real conversation was. You see, I say real because too many people believe it to be a bad thing to discuss weightier issues that include religion or politics. I think just the opposite. These items should be discussed vigorously and judicially, with a firm but kind heart. I say firm because I have found that in my many debates on-line and in person for the past decade the other party is ignorant that what they are saying is either a straw man[5] or the premise can be turned on them, and sometimes it takes persistence (being firm) to point this their dilemma out.

    Now that the groundwork has been laid somewhat, lets delve into some of the conversation.


    When I came into the conversation this person, whom I will call Felicia in honor of their fallacious arguments, was saying they are against organized religion. Which is usually code for "they cannot stand Christianity?" So to set the record straight, I said that she must also be against Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucism, Sikhism, and the like. Realizing the premise she laid out, she quickly admitted to the fact that she is indeed against such religious people organizing into small communities of like minded people. The presumption was that she was arguing for un-organized religion? Whatever that is!? I would hate to see what religion looks like if guided by anarchy. So I wanted to point out the biased view she held by presenting this person with a label that she probably hadn't heard until now. I made the statement that she was Theophobic. She asked for clarification, I said much like a person can be homophobic, so to can a person be Theo(God)phobic. Obviously in our day and age of political correctness one does not wish top be labeled with a phobia, especially a teacher, this implies intolerance when the buzz-word of our day is tolerance. This clearly caught her off guard.

    After thinking over what I had charged her with and the previous conversation she finally admitted to it wholly at first but after put a vague stipulation on it. This stipulation didn't help her recover from her admitted theophobia and dogmatic biasness on stark display. You see, she has probably portrayed religious people as bias and phobic, arguing for things dogmatically, however, I wanted to point out in conversation by explicitly and implicitly pointing out in this case it was on display by her, and not I (a religious person). Even if I didn't point this out as much as I could have, I am hopeful that in private reflection this person will reflect on how she came across.


    At this point the usual litany of "straw man" arguments proceeded to spill forth as they normally do when ones precious bumper-sticker beliefs are challenged and shown to be vacuous. The next thing out of Felicia's mouth was that organized religion has killed more people and started more wars than any other reason in history. This is where I cringed -- a teacher that is charged with children who makes such false claims is a red-flag to me. These types of people repeat such lines not because they have studied history or religion in-depth, but because a politically motivated historian like Howard Zinn or Noam Chomskey said such a thing, or they simply picked up the saying from another friend (who themselves had heard it from another) and it fit so well in their theophobia framework to make the rejection of religion an easy thing in their mind's eye. This is more of a commentary on said person's psychosis than making any sort of valid argument. This being said let us deal with this charge:


    The Bible does not teach the horrible practices that some have committed in its name. It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the details it produces evil because the individual people [Christians] are actually living in rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it [religion] can produce evil, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism (non-religious practices) actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God. For example: the Inquisitions, Crusades, Salem Witch Trials killed about anywhere from 40,000 to 80,000 persons combined (World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana), and the church is liable for the unjustified murder of about (taking the high number here) 300,000-women over about a 300 year period. A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religious criminals have committed); the Chinese regime of Mao Tse Tung, 60 million [+] dead (1945-1965), Stalin and Khrushchev, 66 million dead (USSR 1917-1959), Khmer Rouge (Cambodia 1975-1979) and Pol Pot, one-third of the populations dead, etc, etc. The difference here is that these non-God movements are merely living out their worldview, the struggle for power, survival of the fittest and all that, no evolutionary/naturalistic natural law is being violated in other words (as non-theists reduce everything to natural law -- materialism). However, and this is key, when people have misused the Christian religion for personal gain, they are in direct violation to what Christ taught, as well as Natural Law.[6]

    So the historical reality that this teacher of history seemed to ignore is that non-religious movements have killed more people in the Twentieth-Century than religion has in the previous nineteen (or for that matter, all of mankind's history). I also pointed out to Felicia during our conversation that the non-religious view of origins has no moral law to point to any of the above acts as morally wrong or un-ethical. They are merely currently taboo. For someone to say the Nazis were morally wrong they have to borrow from the theistic worldview that posits a universal moral code. If there is no Divine moral law, then as Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s maxim makes the point, "If there is no God, all things are permissible." Without an absolute ethical norm, morality is reduced to mere preference and the world is a jungle where might makes right.


    This same strain of thought caused Mussolini to comment:

    "Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition . . . . If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth . . . then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity . . . . From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable."[7]

    (Side note: the above definition by Mussolini of fascism, a philosophy major, fits more closely with non-religious liberal democrats today than with religious conservative Republicans.)


    The only problem is that without God, man is the one who dies, quite literally. As Dr. Ravi Zacharias observes: "Conveniently forgotten by those antagonistic to spiritual issues are the far more devastating consequences that have entailed when antitheism is wedded to political theory and social engineering. There is nothing in history to match the dire ends to which humanity can be led by following a political and social philosophy that consciously and absolutely excludes God."[8] And,

    One of the great blind spots of a philosophy that attempts to disavow God is its unwillingness to look into the face of the monster it has begotten and own up to being its creator. It is here that living without God meets its first insurmountable obstacle, the inability to escape the infinite reach of a moral law. Across scores of campuses in our world I have seen outraged students or faculty members waiting with predatorial glee to pounce upon religion, eager to make the oft-repeated but ill-understood charge: What about the thousands who have been killed in the name of religion?

    This emotion-laden question is not nearly as troublesome to answer if the questioner first explains all the killing that has resulted from those who have lived without God, such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, et al . . . why is there not an equal enthusiasm to distribute blame for violence engendered by some of the irreligious? But the rub goes even deeper than that. The attackers of religion have forgotten that these large-scale slaughters at the hands of anti-theists were the logical outworking of their God-denying philosophy. Contrastingly, the violence spawned by those who killed in the name of Christ would never have been sanctioned by the Christ of the Scriptures. Those who kill in the name of God were clearly self-serving politicizers of religion, an amalgam Christ ever resisted in His life and teaching. Their means and their message were in contradiction to the gospel. Atheism, on the other hand, provides the logical basis for an autonomist, domineering will, expelling morality . . . . . The Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevski repeatedly wrote of the hell that is let loose when man comes adrift from his Creator’s moorings and himself becomes God -- he understood the consequences. Now, as proof positive, we witness our culture as a whole in a mindless drift toward lawlessness -- we live with the inexorable result of autonomies in collision. [Zacharias cites Hitler, "I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality . . . . I want young people capable of violence -- imperious, relentless and cruel."][9]


    After pointing out that non-God movements are much more murderous than God movements, Felicia mentioned that my lumping Hitler in my analogy was wrong, she said he was a Christian and that I was wrong.[10] I had never heard this before . . . just kidding, I have heard this brought up quite often and will deal with it in brief here (as I promised Felicia I would).[11] First off, all someone would have to do is read Mein Kampf to understand that Hitler himself stood in stark contrast to Christianity. In fact, Hitler admitted himself that he was a philosophical naturalist; I will quote from a larger essay I did on the subject some years back:

    For instance, Adolf Hitler appealed to the people of his country to have a backbone to advance the logical outworking of their worldview. Now mind you, not all naturalists are racists or killers of the less fortunate . . . however, this is a logical outworking of philosophical [or, metaphysical] naturalism.

    "The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all . . . . If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile."[12]

    Hitler referred to this dispensation of nature as "quite logical." In fact, it was so logical to the Nazis that they built concentration camps to carry out their convictions about the human race as being "nothing but the product of heredity and environment" or as the Nazis liked to say, "of blood and soil."[13]

    The teachings of . . . Hitler and others like them, however, are completely consistent with the teachings of Darwinian evolution. Indeed, social Darwinism has provided the scientific substructure for some of the most significant atrocities in human history. For evolution to succeed, it is as crucial that the unfit die as the fittest survive. Marvin Lubenow graphically portrays the ghastly consequences of such beliefs in his book Bones of Contention[14]:

    "If the unfit survived indefinitely, they would continue to 'infect' the fit with their less fit genes. The result is that the more fit genes would be diluted and compromised by the less fit genes, and evolution could not take place. The concept of evolution demands death. Death is thus as natural to evolution as it is foreign to biblical creation. The Bible teaches that death is a 'foreigner,' a condition superimposed upon humans and nature after creation. Death is an enemy, Christ has conquered it, and he will eventually destroy it. Their respective attitudes toward death reveal how many light years separate the concept of evolution from Biblical creation."[15]

    Adolph Hitler's philosophy that Jews were subhuman and that Aryans were supermen (mirroring the beliefs Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood) led to the extermination of about six million Jews. In the words of Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist: "The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."[16]

    Karl Marx, the father of communism, saw in Darwinism the scientific and sociological support for an economic experiment that eclipsed even the carnage of Hitler's Germany. His hatred of Christ and Christianity led to the mass murder of multiplied millions worldwide. Karl Marx so revered Darwin that his desire was to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to him.

    While not having the time to mention some of what is above as well as below, I promised Felicia that I would show her some evidence that Hitler was not a Christian. Many of the Nazi emblems, such as the swastika, the double lightning bolt "SS" symbol, and even the inverted triangle symbol used to identify classes of prisoners in the concentration camps, originated among homosexual occultists in Germany (some, such as the swastika, are actually quite ancient symbols which were merely revived by these homosexual groups). In 1907, Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels (Lanz), a former Cistercian monk whom the church excommunicated because of his homosexual activities,[17] flew the swastika flag above his castle in Austria.[18] After his expulsion from the church, Lanz founded the Ordo Novi Templi ("Order of the New Temple"), which merged occultism with violent anti-Semitism. A 1958 study of Lanz called, "Der Mann der Hitler die Ideen gab" -- or, "The Man Who Gave Hitler His Ideas" -- by Austrian psychologist Wilhelm Daim, called Lanz the true "father" of National Socialism.

    List, a close associate of Lanz, formed the Guido Von List Society in Vienna in 1904. The Guido Von List Society was accused of practicing a form of Hindu Tantrism, which featured sexual perversions in its rituals (the swastika is originally from India). A man named Aleister Crowley, who, according to Hitler biographer J. Sydney Jones, enjoyed "playing with black magic and little boys," popularized this form of sexual perversion in occult circles.[19] List was "accused of being the Aleister Crowley of Vienna".[20] Like Lanz, List was an occultist; he wrote several books on the magic principles of rune letters (from which he chose the "SS" symbol). In 1908, List "was unmasked as the leader of a blood brotherhood which went in for sexual perversion and substituted the swastika for the cross".[21] The Nazis borrowed heavily from Lis's occult theories and research. List also formed an elitist occult priesthood called the Armanen Order, to which Hitler himself may have belonged.[22]

    What you have here (below) is the first known example of a Swastika in Germany. It is a political poster from 1919 published by the Thule Society. The Thule Society was an occultic group with ties to Hitler and others that I have mentioned herein. Their belief structure is similar to the New Age movement of today.

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

    The Nazi dream of an Aryan super-race was adopted from an occult group called the Thule Society, founded in 1917 by followers of Lanz and List. The occult doctrine of the Thule Society held that the survivors of an ancient and highly developed lost civilization could endow Thule initiates with esoteric powers and wisdom. The initiates would use these powers to create a new race of Aryan supermen who would eliminate all "inferior" races.

    Hitler dedicated his book, Mein Kampf, to Dietrich Eckart, one of the Thule Society's inner circle and a former leading figure in the German Worker's Party (when they met at the gay bar mentioned earlier).[23] ". . . And among them I want also to count that man, one of the best, who devoted his life to the awakening of his, our people, in his writings and his thoughts . . . "[24] Hitler was definitely not a Christian.


    Felicia then mentioned that Christianity is refuted by science and that most of our smartest, brightest scientists are accepting Buddhism. So I broke this statement up into two parts, that is: are scientists converting to the pantheistic worldview?[25] And, does Buddhism comport with reality/science? I will deal with the latter first. Although not the time nor place to explain the Law of non-contradiction, for those who don’t know, I will briefly explain. The law of non-contradiction is simply this: "'A' cannot be both 'non-A' and 'A' at the same time." In the words of professor J. P. Moreland (Ph.D., University of Southern California):

    "When a statement fails to satisfy itself (i.e., to conform to its own criteria of validity or acceptability), it is self-refuting . . . . Consider some examples. 'I cannot say a word in English' is self-refuting when uttered in English. 'I do not exist' is self-refuting, for one must exist to utter it. The claim 'there are no truths' is self-refuting. If it is false, then it is false. But is it is true, then it is false as well, for in that case there would be no truths, including the statement itself."[26]

    I brought up Aristotle and his discovering and codifying many of the Laws of Logic, the most important being the Law of non-contradiction, one of the most important laws of logical thought.[27] Another major problem that faces the pantheist is that there is no reality except the all-encompassing God. Everything else is illusion, or maya. But again, this is a nonsensical statement that is logically self-refuting. If everything is illusion, then those making that statement are themselves illusions. There's a real problem here. As Norman Geisler (Ph.D., Loyola University of Chicago) pointed out, "One must exist in order to affirm that he does not exist."[28] When we claim that there is no reality except the all-encompassing God, we are proving just the opposite. The fact that we exist to make the claim demonstrates that there is a reality distinct from God, which makes this key doctrine of pantheism a self-defeating proposition. It is an untruth -- by definition.


    I then mentioned that Buddhism cannot answer the problem of evil and I provided her with an easily understood example that I often use, it is the example real evil.

    Let's say I am home with my 10-year-old son. My work calls me into work on an emergency so I call my uncle Bo to come over and watch him so I can go in. While I am at work my Uncle Bo rapes and sodomizes my son. Well, eastern philosophies that use the karmic understanding of reincarnation posit that something my son did in a previous lifetime demanded that this happen to him in this lifetime.

    Felicia didn't like this much. She defended reincarnation as if I was being bigoted and intolerant (like she was really being towards Christianity). So I gave some more examples dealing with how holy men in India walk by the needy. In India and Tibet and other areas that hold to reincarnation as the predominate philosophy; in other words, one is in his or her predicament, for the most part, because of a previous life. For the Dalai Lama and other "Holy Men" to help these poor unfortunates is to tamper with their karma. These before mentioned men will literally walk right past the poor, invalid, maimed, un-educated, starving, mentally ill people and completely ignore their pleas for help and assistance. All because of their caste or karmic past! It takes a person who a priori accepts (presupposes) the theistic worldview, specifically the Judeo-Christian worldview, like Mother Theresa who went to India and adopted the city of Calcutta, doing what these holy men didn't. And may I be so bold as to posit that if a Buddhist or Hindu actually helps the needy, they do so out of compassion which is consistent with theism, not pantheism.


    Another example I gave which wasn't allowed to go to its fruition, because those who have tough challenges refuse to hear the tough answers: While speaking in Thailand, Ron Carlson was invited to visit some refugee camps along the Cambodian border. Over 300,000 refugees were caught in a no-man's-land along the border. This resulted from the Cambodian massacre under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in the mid-70's (which is known as the "killing fields") and then subsequently by the invasion of the Vietnamese at the end of the 70's. One of the most fascinating things about these refugee camps was the realization of who was caring for the refugees. Here, in this Buddhist country of Thailand, with Buddhist refugees coming from Cambodia and Laos, there were no Buddhists taking care of their Buddhist brothers. There were also no Atheists, Hindus, or Muslims taking care of those people. The only people there, taking care of these 300,000[+] people, were Christians from Christian mission organizations and Christian relief organizations. One of the men Ron was with had lived in Thailand for over twenty-years and was heading up a major portion of the relief effort for one of these organizations. Ron asked him: "Why, in a Buddhist country, with Buddhist refugees, are there no Buddhists here taking care of their Buddhist brothers?" Ron will never forget his answer:

    Ron, have you ever seen what Buddhism does to a nation or a people? Buddha taught that each man is an island unto himself. Buddha said, 'if someone is suffering, that is his karma.' You are not to interfere with another person's karma because he is purging himself through suffering and reincarnation! Buddha said, 'You are to be an island unto yourself.'" -- "Ron, the only people that have a reason to be here today taking care of these 300,000 refugees are Christians. It is only Christianity that people have a basis for human value that people are important enough to educate and to care for. For Christians, these people are of ultimate value, created in the image of God, so valuable that Jesus Christ died for each and every one of them. You find that value in no other religion, in no other philosophy, but in Jesus Christ."[29]

    Do you get it now? It takes a "Mother Teresa" to go into these embattled countries and bathe, feed, educate, care for these people -- who otherwise are ignored due to harmful religious beliefs.


    The August 22, 2005 New York Times had a fantastic article based on a Nature Journal report about religious belief among scientists: 40% of American scientists believe in God, specifically a God to whom they can pray and expect to receive an answer.[30] Pantheism (Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and the like) do not have a God to pray to. I also mentioned science has in fact backed the Hebrew/Christian account of creation, I used the following example (not quite word-for-word mind you):


    For almost 2,300 years, the universe was thought to be static. However, the Bible clearly states that it had a beginning[31] (see The Case for a Creator, “The Evidence of Cosmology: Beginning with a Bang,” which is where I am quoting the below from). Even now some physicists and cosmologists are still pushing the static view, multiple universe view, and the like. However, all these break down under the math used for them (an infinity cannot be put into a math equation and have it be tenable, this was Albert Einstein's Fudge Factor). What has modern science shown that since the Greeks has been assumed?

    When Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity in 1915 and started applying it to the universe as a whole, he was shocked to discover it didn't allow for a static universe. According to his equations, the universe should either be exploding or imploding. In order to make the universe static, he had to fudge his equations by putting in a facto that would hold the universe steady.

    In the 1920's, the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman and the Belgium astronomer George Lemaitre were able to develop models based on Einstein's theory. They predicted the universe was expanding. Of course, this meant that if you went backward in time, the universe would go back to a single origin before which it didn't exist. Astronomer Fred Hoyle derisively called this the Big Bang -- and the name stuck!

    Starting in the 1920's, scientists began to find empirical evidence that supported these purely mathematical models. For instance, in 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the light coming to us from distant galaxies appears redder than it should be, and this is a universal feature of galaxies in all parts of the sky. Hubble explained this red shift as being due to the fact that the galaxies are moving away from us. He concluded that the universe is literally flying apart at enormous velocities. Hubble's astronomical observations were the first empirical confirmation of the predictions by Friedman and Lemaitre.

    Then in the 1940's, George Gamow predicted that if the Big Bang really happened, then the background temperature of the universe should be just a few degrees above absolute zero. He said this would be a relic from a very early stage of the universe. Sure enough, in 1965, two scientists accidentally discovered the universe's background radiation -- and it was only about 3.7 degrees above absolute zero. There's no explanation for this apart from the fact that it is a vestige of a very early and a very dense state of the universe, which was predicted by the Big Bang model.

    The third main piece of the evidence for the Big Bang is the origin of light elements. Heavy elements, like carbon and iron, are synthesized in the interior of stars and then exploded through supernova into space. But the very, very light elements, like deuterium and helium, cannot have been synthesized in the interior of the stars, because you would need an even more powerful furnace to create them. These elements must have been forged in the furnace of the Big Bang itself at temperatures that were billions of degrees. There's no other explanation.

    So predictions about the Big Bang have been consistently verified by the scientific data. Moreover, they have been corroborated by the failure of every attempt to falsify them by alternative models. Unquestionably, the Big Bang model has impressive scientific credentials . . . . Up to this time, it was taken for granted that the universe as a whole was a static, eternally existing object . . . . At the time an agnostic, American astronomer Robert Jastrow was forced to concede that although details may differ, "the essential element in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy" . . . . Einstein admitted the idea of the expanding universe "irritates me"[32] (presumably, said one prominent scientist, "because of its theological implications"[33])

    So the Bible has stood on one interpretation of the universe when the world was against it. And the Bible ended up being spot on. Not only that, but the Big Bang demonstrates that a Cause must have happened, and that this cause is outside the time-space dimension and would be an absolute Cause (this fits with the theistic model for God, not pantheistic).

    That's it. I hope you all enjoyed the journey down "Straw-Man Lane," where the premisi are fallacious and the conclusions are wrong.

    [1] People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By "presuppositions" we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic worldview, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions. "As a man thinketh, so he is," is really profound. An individual is not just the product of the forces around him. He has a mind, an inner world. Then, having thought, a person can bring forth actions into the external world and thus influence it. People are apt to look at the outer theater of action, forgetting the actor who "lives in the mind" and who therefore is the true actor in the external world. The inner thought world determines the outward action. Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society the way a child catches measles. But people with more understanding realize that their presuppositions should be chosen after a careful consideration of what worldview is true. When all is done, when all the alternatives have been explored, "not many men are in the room" -- that is, although worldviews have many variations, there are not many basic worldviews or presuppositions (Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, Crossway Books, Wheaton [1976], pp. 19-20.).

    [2] world religions, as well as cults and the occult;

    [3] worldviews, philosophy of science, philosophy of history, philosophy of religious, philosophy of political, philosophy of law, etc;

    [4] currant affairs -- hot button issues, socio-economic/religio-political topics, left-right dichotomies, and the like;

    [5] A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

    [6] "The real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?"

    [7] Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.

    [8] Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God?, (Dallas: Word, 1994), p. XVII.

    [9] Ibid., pp. 22-23

    [10] Two articles I recommend: - "Was Hitler a Christian?", and, - "Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust." The authors bio follows for those who think that believers are un-educated:


    M.P.H., Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio; University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio), 2001; M.S. in biomedical science, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio, 1999; Ph.D. in human biology, Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California, 1992; M.A. in social psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, 1986; Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation, minor in psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1976; M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1971; B.S., Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1970. Major area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology; A.A. in Biology and Behavioral Science, Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 1967.


    Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation, 1983; Who's Who in America; MENSA; Ohio certification to teach both elementary and high school levels; Professional memberships.

    Dr Bergman is or was active in the following organizations

    National Association for Gifted Children; American Educational Research Association; National Council on Measurement in Education; American Sociological Association; American Psychological Association; Ohio Psychological Association; Association for the Scientific Study of Religion; American Association of Suicidology; Institute of Religion and Health; American Society of Corrections.

    The Professional Organizations that Dr Bergman is now a member of and/or involved in, include

    Ohio Science Teachers Association; American Biology Teachers Association; The American Scientific Affiliation; The American Association for the Advancement of Science; The American Association for the History of Science; American Chemical Society; American Institute of Biological Sciences; Ohio Academy of Science; American Institute of Chemists; New York Academy of Sciences; The New York Museum of Natural History; Other professional memberships; Society for the Scientific Study of Male Psychology and Physiology, President & Founder.

    Radio, video tapes, and television shows

    Dr Bergman has appeared on approximately 200 radio shows and 14 television shows for various Public Television and other stations. His research has been featured several times on the Paul Harvey Show, and once by David Brinkley.

    [11] Another myth is that the Pope helped or supported Hitler. A good book by Rabbi David G. Dalin and is entitled The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius Rescued Jews from the Nazis.

    [12] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy (New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942), pp. 161-162.

    [13] "The SS Blood and Soul," one of four videos in a video series entitled, The Occult History of the Third Reich (St. Lauret, Quebec: Madacy Entertainment Group, 1998); Now in DVD – ISBN: 0974319465). See also

    [14] see chapter 15, "The Elephant in the Living Room."

    [15] Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 47.

    [16] Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1947), p. 230.

    [17] Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, Dorset Press; New York [1989], p. 19

    [18] Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and their Influence on Nazi Ideology, New York University Press; New York [1985] p. 109

    [19] J. Sydney Jones Hitler in Vienna 1907-1913, Stein & Day; New York [1983], p. 123

    [20] ibid., p. 123

    [21] Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, Dorset Press; New York [1989], p. 23

    [22] Robert G. L. Waite, The Psychopathic God Adolf Hitler, Signet Books; New York [1977], p. 91

    [23] Wulf Schwarzwaller, The Unknown Hitler: His Private Life and Fortune, National Press Book; Washington D. C. [1989], p. 67

    [24] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim: Houghton Mifflin; New York [1971], p.687

    [25] - PDF List of over 600 Scientists, and Professors who Disagree with Darwinism, pantheists (Buddhists, Hindus, and the like) support Darwinism, broadly.

    [26] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1987), p. 92. I recommend Francis Beckwith (Ph.D., Fordham University) & Gregory Koukl’s (M. A. Trinity Law School) book, Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly In Mid-Air. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998).

    [27] “. . . is considered the foundation of logical reasoning,” Manuel Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Readings (Wadsworth; 2001), p. 51. “A theory in which this law fails . . . is an inconsistent theory”, edited by Ted Honderich, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, (Oxford Univ; 1995), p. 625.

    [28] Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1976), p. 187.

    [29] Ron Carlson & Ed Decker, Fast Facts on False Teachings. (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1994), pp. 28-29.

    [30] Also see: Newsweek (7/20/98), Society/Science, "Can Science & Faith Be Reconciled?"

    [31] "The Evidence of Cosmology: Beginning with a Bang," in The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel

    [32] Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 21. Said Jastrow of Einstein: "We know he had well-defined feelings about God, but not as the Creator or the Prime Mover. For Einstein, the existence of God was proven by the laws of nature; that is, the fact that there was order in the Universe and man could discover it." This is the basis for Natural Law, which is the foundation for the ethics found in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Not to mention why science boomed in the West and why the East lagged behind, because the universe isn’t real in eastern thinking. Why study and dissect an illusion? A Hindu scientist must first reject his religions presuppositions and then borrow the presuppositions of the Judeo-Christian worldview, which is that a) the universe exists, and b) men can discover truths about it.

    [33] Ibid., p. 104